Comments on: Shock: Al Sharpton Takes on the Unions

By: sbenard

sbenard — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 06:36:29 +0000

Did I misunderstand Rev. Sharpton? My reading of the interview was that he just said it needed to be debated. I didn’t see any specific or decisive commitment against the bill.

By: Ann

Ann — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:58:44 +0000

Kevin.26…thank you for your further comments re the change of scenery that is perhaps driving the Rev’s point of view. Right on about the # of minorities owning small businesses….

This thread about the Rev. illustrates something about communication today:

1. Shall I take what someone says at face value?
2. If I do, does that mean I may be blindsided by underlying motives I’m not aware of (i.e., I’m a sucker!!)?
3. No matter what, we are all dealing with politicos, bureaucrats, movements, criminals, judicial who may or may not be telling the truth. And a very high percentage of them you KNOW you cannot take at face value. We may have to think new thoughts on new ground to figure out what’s going on, MOST of the time.

For the sake of our nation’s future, I think the effort is well worth it.

By: Sam

Sam — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:26:39 +0000

this issue has been out for a while now, it’s a wonder that Sharpton even picks this up let alone understands it. The secret ballot/vote is one of the most precious rights we have in this country. if that needs explaining, then i think a dictatatorial country is for you.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:31:48 +0000

“but I really thought that the civil rights leaders were basically blind followers of the union mentality of “We’re the only ones who care about you. We’ll get more money from those inherently corrupt management people”.”

In the days where there were fewer minority owned businesses, that might have been the case…

As for people walking miles to get all uppidy at my White Thang jibe, grow up and save it for the Democratic Underground & Kos. For that matter read my post again. The clarification of that line is right after the colon. The fact is that the stereotypical target of a card check business from the checkers Public Relations perspective is one that is owned by a rich white guy, not a middle class Joe the Plumber type, or African American entrepreneur who grew his or her business from the ground up. Change the class (and yes race) of the business owner and dollars to doughnuts the pro-card checkers would rightfully see it as union power-grab before having to blank out that harsh reality and keep pushing Card Check to hold on to their cred as being for the “little guy” (so long as they stay little of course). Welcome to the proverbial church of the painful truth.

I do agree with Eric S though — Al, himself, did not voice much at all for minority business owners, or any middle class small biz owners or others people who would be hurt hardest by card check.

By: kman

kman — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:27:53 +0000

Can someone please explain to me WHY there should be a card check. If people want a union, let them vote secret ballot w/o fear of reprisal or recognition. What are the unions afraid of people voting secret ballot? If they make a very good case for organizing then there shouldn’t be a problem having a union come in to represent them. I just don’t get how there could be an good rational argument FOR the card check. It just seems to bring out the bad image of the union as being strong-armers more.

By: Eric S.

Eric S. — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:51:33 +0000

You’ll note, though, that he’s not worried about the communistic mafia thugs of the union doing the coercing of the workers, he’s worried about business owners (*including the black small business owners, presumably*) doing the coercing.

By: jr

jr — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:36:20 +0000

I agree with Mr. Snitch, I’m afraid Al is for sale and Jessie is already bought and paid for.

By: Rubicon

Rubicon — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:16:55 +0000

Card Check is not a white thing. Nor is it a black thing. Card Check is a union thing. As was pointed out, unions have been losing membership for the past few decades & that means they’ve been losing “dues.” The all important ingredient in al of this is “dues.” Take away the money & the unions can no longer have the back room meetings to “BUY” the elected officials they want for offices, whether by appointment or by party endorsement for an election.
Al Sharpton figuring this out is a good thing. And yes, small businesses are the real gateway to prosperity for those who have not reached upper middle class. Take away those businesses & what you have are many people permanently relegated to poverty & subservience to the masters of the money!
The unions ran into a block wall with this fiscal crisis. It may be good for Democrats to flail away at Bush with, but it exposed the greed of the unions when everyone looked at their so-called “concessions” & it became obvious they were token measures designed to keep the unions with their power, but stick it to the company, the customers and worse, all taxpayers whom the unions expected to pay for their excessively lucrative benefits.
Unions are now desperately trying to portray Republicans & conservatives as the bogey men in this, because the unions realize they blew it. So the unions are employing the typical radical leftist socialist tool by trying to deflect attention away from them and at someone who has long been set up as the bad guy! Only this time, there are enough thinking people who realize what the unions are trying to do is protect their power & increase it through intimidation. Many realize what effect the card check extortion plans would have on “ALL” Americans.

By: Nony Mouse

Nony Mouse — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:51:15 +0000

There are two sides to coersion, and two different arguements made to explain them. The end of the political spectrum you’re on will probably determine about which one you worry.
Those who want a union try to make people sign the cards, and once they’ve twisted the required number of arms, ta-da they have their union. This is the viewpoint from a number of “pro-business” people, that think that unionizing would be bad for their business.
And the other side, the side that Mr Sharpton is worried about: those who do not want the union and may retaliate against those who do, up to and including termination of employment. Ta-da, no chance at a union. This is the viewpoint from a number of “workers-rights” people, that think that unionizing might be good, but calling people out would be bad.
There should (not that there is) be a general outcry that there is a reason we have secret ballots, from all sides of the political spectrum. The only votes that should be public are the ones made by people making policy while they are doing so. Meaning: I want to be able to keep track how my senator is voting in the senate while representing me. I should not be privy to who the senators vote for their mayors as private citizens, even if I have a good party-line guess.

By: asdf

asdf — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:38:53 +0000

kevin:
What a rascist thing to say, im white and against it so what now a$$hat? Is pulling the race card the only argument you can make? Its people like you who keep racism alive cause you need it to fuel your victim mentality and industry. Tard.